1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

King James Bible Inspired

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by TheOliveBranch, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ecclesiasticus is in the original 1611 KJV; it is an apocryphal book (aka Wisdom of Sirach, I believe???). Those who claim to use the KJV 1611 should have this book (and the rest of the apocrypha) in it; or else, they are not really using the 1611 KJV. More likely, it is the 1769 KJV that they are using, much like my Cambridge KJV that I use, I believe.

    In Christ,
    Neal
     
  2. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott - according to the OED in 1611 the word 'easter' could be used to refer to the Jewish passover.

    This is much ado about nothing, IMO.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That simply doesn't answer my objection.

    The writer of scripture used one word with a specific, understood meaning. The readers of the original knew that the word meant passover. It is doubtful that they knew anything of "Easter".

    The KJV translators used two different words that carry two different meanings. If this had been the NIV, you folks would be going nuts about how they had introduced pagan heresy into the scriptures. But somehow since it is the KJV then to deviate from this term with clearly pagan origins amounts to a perversion of God's Word.

    This is wholly inconsistent on your part.

    This sort of reminds me of the apparently arbitrary use of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" to translate hagios pneuma. While Ghost and Spirit are similar, they do not carry the exact same meaning and even if they did the use of both introduces unnecessary confusion.
     
  4. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    Your statement was:
    Again, you have been misinformed.

    That is due to the inaccuracy of your assumption. The Book of Ecclesiasticus is in the 1611 Authorised Version.
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is interesting how persistently you must put words in people's mouths in order to respond to them. Pastor Larry didn't say that. I don't say that. You cannot deal with the actual response so you engage in patent dishonesty by arguing against what we don't say.

    The problem isn't with what we say or believe. The problem is with your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "perfect".

    A translation can be perfect (whole, complete, lacking nothing) in its essential character and message. However it can never.... never be perfect in its words.

    Why? Because the words are different!

    For instance, "Lord" is a perfect translation for "kurios". But "Lord" is not and can never be "kurios". They are two different words meaning the same thing.

    The various faithful versions of the Bible in English are perfect not because they have identical wording but because they communicate the same message/doctrines.
     
  6. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    That simply doesn't answer my objection.

    OK.


    The writer of scripture used one word with a specific, understood meaning. The readers of the original knew that the word meant passover. It is doubtful that they knew anything of "Easter".

    For sure they knew nothing of Passover or Easter - two words in a language that didn't yet exist.

    The KJV translators used two different words that carry two different meanings.

    No, in 1611 they could mean the exact same thing - the Jewish Paysach.

    If this had been the NIV, you folks would be going nuts about how they had introduced pagan heresy into the scriptures. But somehow since it is the KJV then to deviate from this term with clearly pagan origins amounts to a perversion of God's Word.

    This is wholly inconsistent on your part.


    You imagine, with no basis, how I might react and then accuse me of being inconsistent with your expectation. Hardly sporting. [​IMG]

    This sort of reminds me of the apparently arbitrary use of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" to translate hagios pneuma. While Ghost and Spirit are similar, they do not carry the exact same meaning and even if they did the use of both introduces unnecessary confusion.

    Really? They mean exactly the same thing to me and have never caused me any confusion. Let, prevent, froward, reins, bowels, etc. are a different story...
     
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    :eek: We actually agree on something?
    Yes, you are absolutely correct: the AV should NEVER be "thrown out" (utilizing your phrase). I haven't seen anyone make this statement, but totally agree with you.

    Once again, you are absolutely correct: the Authorised Version is not only God's Holy Word, it is a literary work of art. Thee's, thou's and thine's possess such fluidity and so much more eloquence.

    [​IMG]
    Although the Authorised Version is my preferred translation, I love the 1599 Geneva Bible (I have the 1557 Geneva Bible - but only the New Testament), the Tyndale and the Wiclif translations as well.

    [ September 22, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you claiming that if someone said "easter" in 1611, folks would automatically think of the Jewish passover rites? I would be interested in seeing that proof.

    You may be right so I apologize for being guilty of what I so often condemn. I should say that "some folks" rather than "you folks."
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's becuase you don't have a 1611. You have a modern edition of it. Look it up and you will see what I mean. (It's really simple.)

    No, that is not what I am saying. In fact, I am saying what I just said. Read it this time and give it some thought. Don't just spout off about it. Here is it again. This time I have bolded a portion that you should have seen earlier. Apparently you did not.

    Now, as I say, read and start learning. YOu have been here long enough to stop playing these little games.
     
  10. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    The aprocypha were included in the 1611 translation because they were considered profitable reading by the Anglican Church, and were included in their scheduled scripture readings. They were not considered to be inspired however.

    From the Anglican 39 articles of religion, 1571:

    Article VI

    Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

    In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

    Of the names and number of the Canonical Books.

    Genesis.
    Exodus.
    Leviticus.
    Numbers.
    Deuteronomy
    Joshua.
    Judges.
    Ruth.
    The First Book of Samuel.
    The Second Book of Samuel.
    The First Book of Kings.
    The Second Book of Kings.
    The First Book of Chronicles.
    The Second Book of Chronicles.
    The First Book of Esdras.
    The Second Book of Esdras.
    The Book of Esther.
    The Book of Job.
    The Psalms.
    The Proverbs.
    Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher.
    Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.
    Four Prophets the Greater.
    Twelve Prophets the Less.

    All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

    And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

    The Third Book of Esdras.
    The Fourth Book of Esdras.
    The Book of Tobias.
    The Book of Judith.
    The rest of the Book of Esther.
    The Book of Wisdom.
    Jesus the Son of Sirach.
    Baruch the Prophet.
    The Song of the Three Children.
    The Story of Susanna.
    Of Bel and the Dragon.
    The Prayer of Manasses.
    The First Book of Maccabees.
    The Second Book of Maccabees.

    --

    Again, much ado about nothing.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. Except for the bit about 1st and Esdras. What's up with that?
     
  13. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    Alas, that would be directly proportional to the intensity of one's love and espousal of the 1611 Authorised Version. If the claim is "1611 KJV Only" with such vehemence as to dismiss all other translations, then it is a very substantive point.
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's just their name for Ezra and Nehemiah. Anyone know for sure?
     
  15. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, the 1611 has the only translation of the uninpsired Tobit I trust. Just kidding. I still don't see the big deal. Does anyone here claim the 1611 translators were knowingly making a perfect version? God was using them providentially.
     
  16. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    This is a joke, right?
     
  17. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ecclesiasticus is in the original 1611 KJV; it is an apocryphal book (aka Wisdom of Sirach, I believe???). Those who claim to use the KJV 1611 should have this book (and the rest of the apocrypha) in it; or else, they are not really using the 1611 KJV. More likely, it is the 1769 KJV that they are using, much like my Cambridge KJV that I use, I believe.

    In Christ,
    Neal
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I use the same King James as you do, 1769. The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake, not to be part of God's infallible word.
     
  18. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    No joke. Maybe I don't get out enough, but I've NEVER seen a KJVO present that argument. So far it's always been the opposition introducing that as a straw man.

    So I repeat: Does ANYONE think the KJV translators were KNOWINGLY making a perfect translation?
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    .........but somehow it is here in my 1611 Authorised Version.......
     
  20. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    It was once stated on this board (a few months ago) that King James was specifically mentioned in the Old Testament.
     
Loading...